For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to dopharaoh wrote:What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?
Apart from the fact that for someone who has never tasted sweet, you can never describe what exactly that is, giving a description of that sort is based on what you know about sweetnness.rantal wrote:When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to dopharaoh wrote:What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?
all the best, rantal
On the contrary I know how to answer the sugar virgin, I say sugar is sweet and by that they to learn how to answer when asked what is the taste of sugar, then they know how to answerpharaoh wrote:Apart from the fact that for someone who has never tasted sweet, you can never describe what exactly that is, giving a description of that sort is based on what you know about sweetnness.rantal wrote:When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to dopharaoh wrote:What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?
all the best, rantal
You might be able to teach him how to answer a question, even though, he doesn't know as much as you know about the taste of sugar. having tasted the sugar, leaves some information (know) in your mind, most of which can in no way be transferred to anybody's mind. Those are what you only know.rantal wrote:On the contrary I know how to answer the sugar virgin, I say sugar is sweet and by that they to learn how to answer when asked what is the taste of sugar, then they know how to answer[/color][/i]
If he knows how to answer then he knows as much as I, what more is there to know?pharaoh wrote:You might be able to teach him how to answer a question, even though, he doesn't know as much as you know about the taste of sugar. having tasted the sugar, leaves some information (know) in your mind, most of which can in no way be transferred to anybody's mind. Those are what you only know.rantal wrote:On the contrary I know how to answer the sugar virgin, I say sugar is sweet and by that they to learn how to answer when asked what is the taste of sugar, then they know how to answer[/color][/i]
That is exactly my point; the KNOW HOW to ride the bike, just as I do, similarly, unless they are a sugar virgin, they KNOW HOW to describe the taste of sugar.pharaoh wrote:You are free to define 'knowing something', as the ability to describe something; but that's as long as you don't talk to other people. Someone who knows how to ride a bicycle, for sure, can't describe how she maintains her balance on the bike, whereas she knows how to do it.
Prove that accepted theory of 'knowing that' and 'knowing how' is anything beside reflex. Not that is a harder task than you present me with!Impenitent wrote:prove that your "knowing how" is anything besides reflex
-Imp
Even more traditionally they have drawn a distinction between empiricism and rationalism, a priori and a posteriori, synthetic and analytic. Most philosophers accept that you know things by sensing it or by thinking about it. Descartes pointed out that the senses are fallible and cannot be relied on to give knowledge that is beyond any doubt. To take this literally, you can't claim to know how, there is only the sensation of knowing how. Absolute knowledge is largely useless, it is analytic, you know for instance that all bachelors are unmarried, because that's what they are. You know that 2+2=4, because it is.rantal wrote:Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'
all the best, rantal
1.rantal wrote:
That is exactly my point; the KNOW HOW to ride the bike, just as I do, similarly, unless they are a sugar virgin, they KNOW HOW to describe the taste of sugar.
I am not attepting to define knowing something as the ability to describe, rather I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW; how to ride a bike how to respond when asked about the taste of sugar
all the best, rantal
Then, please elucidate what knowledge is and where it resides.I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW;
pharaoh wrote:1.rantal wrote:
That is exactly my point; the KNOW HOW to ride the bike, just as I do, similarly, unless they are a sugar virgin, they KNOW HOW to describe the taste of sugar.
I am not attempting to define knowing something as the ability to describe, rather I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW; how to ride a bike how to respond when asked about the taste of sugar
all the best, rantal
Then, please elucidate what knowledge is and where it resides.I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW;
2. 'Know' is a general term whose meaning is extended to include some different concepts. What all these concepts have in common, is preservation of information. Humans, and to some extent, other creatures, are capable of storing information. This information is often used when needed (sometimes not). You have to observe an action like a 'description', or 'riding a bike', in order to objectively substantiate the existence of such information, as behaviourists and, as I gather, also you believe, which I don't deny; you can call it 'know how' if you will.
Other aspects of knowing might be what one considers to be a potential in someone else; like when you say" He knows me". The one you are talking about might not have even noticed you, but you say with some certainty that he knows you. This is where 'know how' loses weight. He hasn't done a thing but you're almost certain that he knows you.
Another aspect of knowing is when you feel your own stored "information"; In other words, you recall something. If you have tasted sugar, you might be able to remember how it tasted. This is what the other person, whom you have taught to describe, can't do. In fact, he knows how to describe the taste of sugar, but he doesn't know the actual taste of sugar. In this case 'know how' is totally irrelevant.
rantal wrote:pharaoh wrote:rantal wrote:
1. I don't need to define 'knowing that' since that is not part of my theory and since I am arguing that there is no 'knowing that'
[/color]